Page 22/23
Introduction 2–3 Section 1: The problem of poor planning 4–5 Section 2: The challenge of the first MTSS – ESSPIN’s approach 6–13 Section 3: Beyond the MTSS – the planning hierarchy 14–19 Section 4: Evidence-based planning for the next MTSS 20–21 Section 5: Challenges and changes – the impact of planning 22–25 Conclusion 26
Section 5: Challenges and changes – the impact of planning
The shift from an essentially ad-hoc approach to management to a plan-based approach is a difficult one but, despite remaining challenges, it is possible to see significant changes for the better.
Challenges
Changes
The biggest barrier that ESSPIN has had to tackle in supporting strategic planning in the six states has been the failure to fund the MTSS. Many of those involved in and committed to the preparation of the first MTSS were seriously disillusioned when the eventual budget allocation did not match the bid made in Year One of the MTSS. That disillusionment was intensified when funds were not released even in line with the diminished allocation. Uncertainties about the availability of resources, political (and in the past military) interference and the endemic corruption make it not only difficult to plan for more than a few weeks ahead but engender an attitude of ‘what’s the point in planning?’ in the belief that the resources will never be made available to deliver the plan.
After nearly two years things are changing. The emergence of the key plans, first the MTSS then the Ministry strategic plans, has been welcomed by the most senior policy-makers. Indeed, there is even a danger of a rush into planning with demands from the top for everyone to be planning at once. This at least has the payoff that the most senior policymakers now see the planning process as something with which they need to engage. And it is now becoming recognised by some policy-makers, that it is easier to ensure that personal priorities get included in the plan by attending the key planning meetings.
Equally importantly, the need for capable planning officers in strong PRS departments is beginning to be recognised. These departments will need to have the capacity So there has been a danger that and the commitment to collect, strategic planning is seen as analyse and utilise evidence a developed-world luxury, that of the state’s needs. For this reason states pay lip-service to in order to they are, with ESSPIN help, setting continue to get donor support – up units within their departments but not something to take too seriously. with responsibilities for data collection This manifests itself when a key through the Ministry Education planning meeting, requiring top policy Management Information System makers, is called. At the last minute (EMIS) and monitoring and evaluating the intended participants are required progress towards the targets set to attend to some local issue – in the MTSS through a Monitoring urgent perhaps but not particularly and Evaluation (M&E) Unit. Planners important – so they send their junior in the PRS Departments will then staff along who have no understanding use this evidence to identify of the policy framework that they the highest priorities and prepare are asked to help develop. properly costed plans to tackle those high priority needs and challenges.
Below Tables and chairs, blackboards and teachers; they all need to be planned for at local government and state ministries.